In a recent government meeting, the Board of Appeals discussed a variance application for a proposed two-story single-family dwelling on a 9,125 square foot parcel located on Lexington Avenue in Patchogue. The applicant, represented by Andrew Malguinera and Larry Davis, is seeking multiple variances, including relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 40,000 square feet, as the property is situated in an A-1 residential district.

The property currently has 79 feet of frontage on Lexington Avenue, which remains unimproved. The applicant's proposal includes a driveway on this unimproved road, which has raised concerns regarding compliance with Town Law 280A, which mandates that access to structures must be via an existing state, county, or town highway. The zoning enforcement officer indicated that the property has 0 feet of frontage on Jefferson Avenue, complicating access.

During the meeting, planner Mister Reid noted that 44% of the 48 residential lots within a 500-foot radius conform to the lot frontage requirements, while 52% meet the lot area requirements. The board has previously granted variances for similar applications in the area, suggesting a precedent for the current request.

Several local residents voiced their opposition to the proposed development, citing concerns about the impact on their quality of life, property values, and the potential for increased traffic and safety hazards. Residents expressed worries about the proximity of the new dwelling to their properties, particularly the proposed 30-foot rear yard setback, which is significantly less than the required 60 feet. They emphasized the importance of maintaining the neighborhood's character and the natural environment, which includes wildlife habitats.

Supporters of the application argued that the proposed dwelling aligns with the existing neighborhood's characteristics and that the requested variances are reasonable given the unique circumstances of the lot. They highlighted that the construction of a driveway rather than a full road would minimize environmental disruption.

The board is expected to deliberate further on the application, weighing the community's concerns against the applicant's justification for the variances. The outcome will have implications for future developments in the area, as it may set a precedent for similar requests.